Ce sujet est fermé
Oh, okay, sort of like Shepard's Paragon/Renegade interrupts. I dig it!
More like the light conversation shown at the start of the E3 demo. They are talking, and you have the option of popping up the dialogue wheel if you have an interest in seeing what your Inquisitor might have to say. You can opt back out if none of the responses interest you or if you change your mind.
I thought this was worth posting here, as the topic of equitable/comparable content (including romance) for advisors and companions comes up fairly often.
From Gaider's tumblr: About the only difference is that they don’t have party banter.
It's worth noting that the advisors do have what we may as well call "stronghold banter." They banter with each other and NPCs, reflecting their relationships and reactivity. You'll have plenty of opportunity to be around them to hear it.
I assume David didn't want to call it banter because people would assume it's the 'walk around outside and trigger a conversation' banter and then be angry at you when it didn't happen that way.
It's good to know they chat. Is it like companion banter where you'll sometimes be prompted to comment?
It's different, because of other features we'll be talking about soon. Plus we were already abusing things in ways tech didn't quite expect. We want them talking as much as you guys.
So there isn't banter between the advisers and companions?
You're not traveling as a party at the time, so there are logistical blah blah concerns you don't need to care about and I can barely explain. I came up with a reasonable workaround that lets everyone communicate in a way that makes sense for the setting. You'll know what people think of each other.
Ah, I was speaking of being interested in knowing if we will be able to partake in banter with the advisors in the "stronghold banter" like we can with companions out in the field. Thanks for taking the time, though.
There's no technical reason why not. The "interactive" parts of party banter play out pretty similarly to the person near the water in part 1 of the E3 demo (which I presume is part of the reason of showing off that particular conversation).
So if the conversation is going on and the writers have written in a potential response for the Inquisitor, you can activate the conversation. It'd just depend if the writers felt a response was appropriate there (which is the same for all of those types of conversations).
well, for all that they swear they only consider narrative reasons when determining these things, I think they would consider it wasteful to spend a good chunk of writing and animation budget on a romance that would be experienced by a comparatively narrow cross-section of players.
Ensuring that we have choices for everyone also makes us feel more comfortable trying out something with a bit less concern of making sure availability is ensured too, however.
3 human females for LI... Would it have killed them to mix it up a little? its a fantasy game with all these interesting races and they just gave me 3 different shades of human?
maybe your right, maybe they managed to write 3 amazing and different female human LIs that are nothing like the female humans LIs of their other games...( I doubt it)
Would still much rather have something different like a female Quinari or dwarf something that they havent done before
If you're concerned about us using common archetypes in our romances for women, I'm not sure why you'd think that we'd suddenly have magnificent clairvoyance for doing something different and unique with a different race. If your interest in romancing a Qunari or Dwarf is based on their politics/history, that still applies for new human characters as well.
The thing is we don't create characters to be romanced. We create characters, and then determine who fits for romances that we want to tell. While I agree that it'd be neat to have a Qunari woman as a companion, that fact alone wouldn't make her romanceable either.
With every game there's going to be people that are unsatisfied with the choices available to them.
I think having a diplomat familiar with Orelsian politics that was a Dwarf, Elf, or Qunari would be quite a different character, actually.
Because as someone who identifies as sexually ambiguous, both hearing that the person who counted as representation wasn't and that they don't want to go that route again thus pretty much confirming I'll never get a representation in one of the LIs is very depressing.
I am a bit confused though. Didn't you disagree with me when I said we were looking more for representation because you felt choice of who to romance was a preferable over representation?
I don't recall this conversation. What thread was it in?
I may be misremembering. I'll have to do some searching. I was just of the presumption that you didn't like set sexualities because they restricted choice of who to romance.
that's what David calls it.
I always took the term as David applied it to be an external one, as opposed to one of self-identification.
In terms of self identity, I don't think having set sexualities precludes someone from having a characteristic where they're uncertain of how to identify specifically. Though externally people will label the sexual orientation based on the potential pairings anyways. If the character ends up being able to be with someone of the same sex, people will describe that character as gay, if it's the opposite sex people will describe the character as straight. If it's possible for the character to end up with either a man or a woman, then people will call the character bisexual.
But does any of these prevent the character from existing in a way where they are uncertain of their own sexual identity and where it lies?
I get the frustration that comes from making Merrill character bisexual but there is a problem with having all character ambiguous and that is bi erasure. There is also a problem making all of them bisexual.
For better of for worse David Gaider was strongly criticized of using playersexual and ambiguous sexuality on various places, a lot of people wanted the devs to use set definitions. The problem is that not everyone uses set definitions. As a demisexual I was disappointing with the reveal, I really though that Merrill was on that spectrum. That is why I still think forcing them to set all of them was bisexual is as bad as put them as ambiguous, either way there is erasure.
Is demisexual on the same lines as heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual? On AVEN it sounds like a demi person can still identify as straight/gay/bi and so forth. (Although maybe not necessarily?)
Hum, let us say that I can only speak for me. For some time I identify myself as homosexual but it felt wrong because my attraction was never sexual in nature and more queer romantic. It was a deep connection with someone that lead me to be sexual attracted to that person. I can appreciate beauty but I never jump for "I want to tap that", in a way I am more on the asexual spectrum and not on the sexual one. So no I would say that my demisexuality is more close to asexuality than homosexuality, if that makes sense. I would say homoromantic is more on that line of though.
I more mean "does demi replace or compliment the other terms?"
For instance, saying that I am a heterosexual bisexual seems inconsistent. But saying that I am a demisexual bisexual seems fine, since from what I understand demisexuality is more that sexual (or for demiromantics, romantic) attraction is something that comes after a strong emotional connection occurs with someone. So if someone is demi-bi, they need a strong emotional connection to feel the attraction, but it can be applied to either gender. If someone is demi-gay, they need a strong emotional connection, but it only happens towards people of similar gender.
Here are some more links with more details in the AVEN forums:
link to demi and gray-a info
defining sexual attraction
specifying orientation
romantic/aromantic lexicon
So basically, yes they could identify as hetero/bi/pan/a/homoromantic while also being demisexual.
Yeah that's what I was thinking and yeah, those links are ones that I had read. So I'm curious if someone like Merrill (or others) may fit into this?
I'll probably also add that until probably 6 months ago, the entire concept of demisexuality was something I was completely oblivious to.
What is art all about?
I have a feeling my answer would be likely have to be an essay 
Interesting observation. I guess BW didn't think that anyone would want to romance a dwarven or qunari female? Would be interesting to see something different in the future though.
I'm quite certain there are people that would like to romance a dwarven or a qunari female (although I'd like to think there are more requirements that people would like than *just* that). Though I think it'd require the concept of creating a character specifically for the purpose of being romanced (i.e. "People want to romance a Dwarf, so lets make a romanceable Dwarf") which I'm pretty sure isn't how writers do things. Might be good to make an ask of David on his tumblr page?
I also don't believe in the word of god if it isn't reflected in the writting. The best example is J.K Rowling saying dumbledore was gay. I wish I could notice such thing in the books. My friend told me, and someone who told to my friend learned this on twitter. Mhh.
And I didn't take what said Gaider seriously to be honest and I liked what a fan said to him on his tumblr about that.
I would even have written much more. I like Gaider, but there he lost me. What he said doesn't mean much to me. It's Bioware that said that it's left to interpretation, not the players. And now he is saying that it's irrelevant, she is bisexual despite what people want to think a long time after the game. Nope. I'm sorry, but nope. Don't take us for fools.
I used to say the same thing until I came to the conclusion that it was worse to consider them "playersexual" because I was oblivious to the concepts of such things like bisexual erasure, so I ended up referring to them explicitly as bisexual.
I also changed my mind on this because of the well thought out explanations posters on this board gave me regarding why things like metagaming need not apply when ascertaining whether or not a character is bisexual. Some of those posters post in this thread and the other threads.
One of the most compelling ones was the reality that bisexual people shared with me, which is that simply because they do not outwardly display attraction to both sexes (often due to being in a relationship already) doesn't mean that a person is not bisexual. Couple this with the previous concerns above, and it became apparent to me that the way I framed it was wrong and that entertaining any notion of "playersexuality" was actually helping to contribute to the erasure of bisexuals. So I stopped, especially given the context of the game was enough for people to tell me that they identify the characters as bisexuals and I don't really have a compelling counterargument beyond "metagaming."
I don't believe in "owning" something that I no longer believe. Unless the critique is that David (and I suppose me) are trying to duck the accountability of our previous statements, which is a position that I don't agree with. If someone wishes to call me out on my prior statements being inappropriate and conducive towards erasure of sexual identity, I won't deny that I said it nor the validity of their interpretations of what I said. I can't speak for David though; you'll have to ask him if that's what he's doing.
If they write them as being available to one gender, they will be seen as just heterosexual or homosexual.If they write them as being available to both genders, they will be seen as just bisexual.
In either case, not representing me.
I suppose it'd be more, does it seem like it's appropriate for you? There's likely going to be people that will assume you're heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual when viewed externally in real life too. People already called Merrill all sorts of other things before David referred to her as a bisexual. So why does it matter what other people would think with a future character?
I haven't seen any evidence that Bioware backed away from the "ambiguous" line, because as I recall in those threads Bioware simply said that they players were free to read in what they liked and they had no objection in principle to the idea that different gendered Protagonists lived in parallel words. But I do not recall, for example, DG ever saying that characters had no set sexuality, or that characters were "playersexual".
I remember David making reference to other people saying it on his tumblr once. People seemed to think he was referring to it that way (it was my first exposure to the idea of bisexual erasure). Maybe it's a valid critique that we should have been clearer about it much earlier, but part of that is going to require me to learn context and to grow past a point where I'm not longer saying to myself "why are people so interested in this concept of playersexual vs bisexual."
It's also when I learned that I need to be more careful when I chime in about stuff. My references to playersexuality were mostly grounded in "I don't really care if that's what someone wants to see the characters as" coupled with some jadedness towards the critics that hated that "everyone" was bisexual. But by even entering the discussion, in the eyes of some I grant legitimacy to the contents of the discussion.
Have no references to them being attracted to either gender but get attracted to the PC I guess would do well. Honestly the best way I can see them doing it is taking the DA2 way but expanding on that by putting no doubt that the protagonist is the first person the character has had attraction towards.
Okay. You mention attraction to either gender. What do you mean by that? I don't think you mean that the character can't be attracted to the PC (whom will be either male or female most likely), but that the reason for the attraction is not in any way because of the PC's gender?
I thought that Phate summed that up rather well.
It made sense to me at least.
@Asdrubael They do take player feedback into consideration. That's probably a very small part of the reason why we have a Qunari romance for the game. However, they aren't going to start a character idea with, "Here's someone for a romance." From everything I've read, they create the characters first, then they look them over and see who works for a romance from there.
Also, representation of RL sexuality > representation of a fantasy race, which is another part of the team's logic.
Yes. Though I don't know if fan requests made Iron Bull a romance, or if it was just Patrick going "I have some interesting ideas for romance for a Qunari."
You could probably make a reasonable argument for "why don't you have more non-humans as companions" but that's not something I'm able to answer. I'd suggest maybe a tumblr ask.
i am not against to having new full fledged companions and advisors in story dlc, i am against only day one dlc like Javic
The likelihood of getting full fledged companions and advisors as DLC is minimal, as it'd mean we have breadcrumbed content hooks throughout the game to be leveraged. And if we were to do that, the character would be like Javik.
We could decide to not release the content on Day One, but it'd still be sitting on otherwise completed content which is probably not the best idea for us, nor do I think it will do much to placate fans that want us to keep DLCs to having as minimal amount of cut content as possible.
I just don't take fiction to heart like I would real life things
Fiction is still a place to communicate ideas and attitudes, however.
It's true that it doesn't affect as all people the same way and some just won't care, though that doesn't preclude other people from caring.
A thread in the forum that is very rarely read , (not to mention that dev was discussing and interacting about this topic in THIS thread).I'm not being needlessly combative if an actual moderator believes discussing the races of romances in the romance thread is off topic, thats fine. Lets the mods do there jobs, no need for members to try and do it for them
Just as a heads up, but that thread has a 0% chance of me missing posts compared to a larger, fast moving thread like this one (where, if I fall behind on, I don't read all of the posts).
Because queer people suffer from lack of representation and outright discrimination and harassment wherein elves don't suffer because they don't exist.
Exactly this.
I'm infinitely more concerned with something like this than any inferred "racism" we may have against fictional races in a video game world. Requesting more elf content because you're a fan of elves is equivalent to any person asking for more content that they think they'll find interesting.
Why is it fine to challenge straight (male) player privilege with romance-able companion sexuality, but it's laughably absurd to do the same by way of race?
One is a group of real life individuals that routinely gets discriminated against in virtually all aspects of life and have to face this discrimination on a systemic level in the real world. Elves, Dwarves, and Qunari, on the other hand, do not actually exist as entities in the real world. It's also why we're more interested in experimenting with themes like racism with them, because we are afforded a bit more freedom to do so without being concerned about whether or not we're falling into common conventions such as making groups of people that are typically affected by things like racism the continued target of racism in our games. I think approaching the themes of racism can be very, very interesting in a game. But I'd feel more like walking on eggshells if we were trying to deal with it in a setting based on real life than in a fictional one.
If playing elves is your "comfort zone" (beyond simply what you find more enjoyable) then you're going to need to elaborate a bit more on that, because I have a better understanding of LGBT content being "Thank you for letting me play a character that shares traits with myself and attempting to do so in a respectful way" than elf/dwarf/qunari fans saying that they feel I'm being discriminatory against a fictional race. The latter comes across more as "I like this type of content so please make more of it" which I do not consider equivalent.
I don't find elves, dwarves, or qunari being fictional making the idea of more inclusion for other points of view and romances in Dragon Age "absurd". I don't see the harm in a female dwarven love interest, or a Tal-Vashoth love interest, aside from the issue of the prospective women not fitting the "ideal" bodytype that seems to be restricted for the potential love interests a player can pursue in Dragon Age.
I don't see any harm in it either. I don't see any harm in asking for it either because you think it will be interesting and you like being an elf in the Dragon Age setting.
I do not, however, consider it equivalent to trying to include LGBT content (which frankly, could also go to Elves, Dwarves, and Qunari, so I'm not really sure that the race is the issue here) and consider it much more of a "nice to have" than an actual "right thing to try to do."
It's reasonable to wonder if we have an inclination not to do so because of the body types, although I think that this argument would have more merit if we had more racial companions anyways. As is, we don't have many racial companions (male or female) which if you like those races, feel free to be upset about. But please don't equate the lack of that type of content as equivalent to the lack of LGBT content because I simply do not think that that is the case.
I consider them very different issues with different degrees of responsibility for whether or not there's a justification for including the content. Sorry.
Retour en haut